1

Suppose that $f:(0,\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfies $f(x)-f(y)=f\left(\dfrac{x}{y}\right)$ for all $x,y \in (0,\infty)$ and $f(1)=0.$

$(a)$. Prove that $f$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $f$ is continuous at $1$

$(b)$. Prove that $f$ is differentiable on $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $f$ is differentiable at $1$

$(c).$ Prove that $f$ is differentiable at $1$, then $f^{\prime}(x)=\dfrac{f^{\prime}(1)}{x}$ for all $x\in (0,\infty)$.

$\underline {Attempt}$

$(a).$ If $f$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)$ then $f$ is also continuous at $1$.

$\space$ $ \space $$\space$ $\space$ If $f$ is continuous at $1,$ We have $$ \forall \space \varepsilon \space \exists \space \delta \space\text{such that} \space|x-1|<\delta \space \text{whenever} \space|f(x)-f(1)|=|f(x)|< \varepsilon $$

$\space$ $ \space $$\space$ $\space$ Now let $a \in (0,\infty)$ and if $|x-a|<\delta_1 $,

$$|f(x)-f(a)|=\left|f\left(\dfrac{x}{a}\right)\right| <\varepsilon$$

$\therefore$ $f$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $f$ is continuous at $1$

$(b).$ If $f$ is differentiable $(0,\infty)$ then $f$ is also differentiable at $1$.

$\space$ $ \space $$\space$ $\space$ If $f$ is differentiable at $1$, We have $$f^{\prime}(1)=\lim_{h\to 0 } \frac{f(1+h)-f(1)}{h}$$

$\space$ $ \space $$\space$ $\space$ set $h=\dfrac{t}{x}$ implies when $h \to 0$, $t \to 0$ so $$f^{\prime}(1)=\lim_{h\to 0 } \frac{f(1+h)}{h}=\lim_{t\to 0 } \frac{f\left(1+\dfrac{t}{x}\right)}{\dfrac{t}{x}}=x\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{f(x+t)-f(x)}{t} $$

$\therefore$ $f$ is differentiable on $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $f$ is differentiable at $1$

$(c).$ If $f$ is differentiable at $1$,We have $$f^{\prime}(1)=\lim_{h\to 0 } \frac{f(1+h)-f(1)}{h}$$ $\space$ $ \space $$\space$ $\space$ this implies, $$f^{\prime}(1)=\lim_{h\to 0 } \frac{f(1+h)}{h}=x\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{f(x+t)-f(x)}{t}=xf^{\prime}(x) $$

I referred Functional equation $f(xy)=f(x)+f(y)$ and differentiability and Show a function for which $f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y) $ is continuous at zero if and only if it is continuous on $\mathbb R$ but I don't know exactly my attempt is correct or not if not give some advises.

Thank you!

Alhabud
  • 377

2 Answers2

1

The OP is clearly about whether the solution provided is ok, and not about a solution, I address the former.

Answer to OP: no!!

Because you neither specify what $\delta_1$ is, nor do you prove, by other means, that such a $\delta_1$ exists. It was fixed by @Paramanand Sigh in the comments. Another possible addition to OP will do the job. Add: For a given $a>0$ there is a $\delta_1>0$ such that $$ |x-a|<\delta_1 \implies |\frac{x}{a}-1|<\delta \, . $$

To emphasize: the fact that a $\delta$ exists does not automatically prove a $\delta_1$ exists. Notice that $\delta_1$ must depend on the point where you consider continuity.

Advice: When writing a proof, assume that a computer will read it. So, the first thing you do is to make sure every parameter you introduce is clearly defined either beforehand, or immediately after a comma.

0

a) I would have used the characterisation of continuity with sequences.

If $f$ is continuous in $1$, then for $x\geqslant 0$, if $x_n\rightarrow x$, then $f(x_n) = f(x)+f(\frac{x_n}{x})\rightarrow f(x) + f(1) = f(x)$. So $f$ is continuous in $x$.

b) If $f$ is differentiable on $1$, then for $x_0\geqslant 0$ and $x\neq x_0$, $\frac{f(x)-f(x_0)}{x-x_0}=\frac{1}{x_0}\cdot \frac{f(\frac{x}{x_0})-f(1)}{\frac{x}{x_0}-1}\underset{x\rightarrow x_0}{\longrightarrow}\frac{1}{x_0}f'(1)$ so $f$ is differentiable on $x$.

c) If you derive the relation with $y$ as a variable, then you get $$-f'(y) = -\frac{x}{y^2} f'(\frac{x}{y})$$ so by replacing $y$ with $1$, you get $-xf'(x)=-f'(1)$, so $$f'(x) = \frac{f'(1)}{x}$$

math
  • 2,313
  • Is there anything wrong what I did? – Alhabud Jan 02 '21 at 19:20
  • 1
    No it's right. But it's a bit more heavy in my opinion. But it's absolutely right. – math Jan 02 '21 at 19:29
  • Indeed, layout and style is worth commenting on! Not least because you yourself need to be convinced your proof is correct. It is curious that you weren't convinced already, because there is a lot of justification. This is why a "lighter" approach, like using sequences, can come in handy—there's much less "guff".

    Correct grammar and punctuation also helps!

    – Good Boy Jan 09 '21 at 14:26
  • It is unnatural, at least to me, to bring in sequences. The computation in the OP are right on spot. The only problem is $\delta_1$ is mysterious and undefined. – Behnam Esmayli Jan 11 '21 at 18:40